I didnt like "Over There".

gh0st

Newbie
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
6,023
Reaction score
0
I hated it. The music from the commercials rocked though.

Discuss.
 
Stop stealing my "Discuss" motto, bitch.


I only saw the last 15 minutes where the emo soldiers were crying about horrific atrocities of nature, or something. "I can't describe in words *cuts wrists* what has happened to me *cries*"

Where did all the real men go?
 
gh0st said:
they died in world war 2 :(

WWII soldiers were EXTREME.

That was a time when war was...civilized, in a sense. Now one side has taken the gloves off, we'll take ours off when we're ready.
 
"Over There" is a soap opera in iraq... therefore it sucks.
It was extremely corny...extremely.
 
hmmm... i taped it cause i was too busy watching Lost, should I even watch the tape?
 
Icarusintel said:
hmmm... i taped it cause i was too busy watching Lost, should I even watch the tape?

Sure if watching poorly acted soldiers crying, and whining about being over there is your thing.
 
xlucidx said:
Sure if watching poorly acted soldiers crying, and whining about being over there is your thing.
hmmm... now i'm starting to feel bad about taping over 24
 
My dad watched it and said it sucked and was completely unrealistic. He told me how they saw a boy put a paint can on the side of the road and they go over and pull up next to the paint can. Of course, the paint can explodes and blows off someone's leg.
 
oh, I was going to watch that show- it looked good. I thought it was going to be like a current time "Band of Brothers" miniseries, but oh yea, its done by FX- not HBO. So I figured it wont be real at all and I guess I was right.
 
Personally I didn't think it was that bad. It wasn't great but it was ok. I'd watch at least the next episode to see if it gets any better.
 
everything about it sucked. but then again, what do you expect from an FX original series? :rolleyes:
 
I swear if HBO was in charge it would have been good as Band of Brothers I wish.
 
The review in the New Yorker said it was supposed to be pretty good.....
 
wow, finally got around to watching the tape last night... this show is ridiculous, i could barely finish it, the acting was horrible, and some of the tactics were absolutely atrocious... perhaps if something like this were made as a miniseries with better actors, better scripts, more money, better direction, and more attention to detail and realism maybe it would be watchable
 
The only thing I liked was that Seal song in the trailer called "Love's Divine"... other than that, I couldn't even finish watching the show. I got distracted by just thinking about paint drying and grass growing.
 
Just saw the second episode. It's like all they want to do is shoot, without a real reason.
 
Yeah, the second episode was pretty stupid. There was really no point in the story at all and it felt generally pretty crappy. You know, the only reason I watched it was because of the bad ass uniforms they wear.
 
Pesmerga said:
Stop stealing my "Discuss" motto, bitch.


I only saw the last 15 minutes where the emo soldiers were crying about horrific atrocities of nature, or something. "I can't describe in words *cuts wrists* what has happened to me *cries*"

Where did all the real men go?

The real men? You obviously know how a real man should act in war huh? They should be all Rambo like and just kill without showing the emotional side, right?

Truth of the matter is that many of these guys are having to deal with death and destruction on a daily basis. It's about time they show the other side of our soldiers.

Pesmerga said:
WWII soldiers were EXTREME.

That was a time when war was...civilized, in a sense. Now one side has taken the gloves off, we'll take ours off when we're ready.

How can WWII soldiers be any more "EXTREME" than the guys fighting in Iraq? They're soldiers and they kill. Our guys today can kick some serious ass. I'd like you to go up to a Navy SEAL, Delta Force Operative, or Iraq combat veteran and tell them that WWII soldiers were more extreme.

And another thing. When has war ever been civilized? What's civilized about humans killing other humans?

Get your head from out of your ass.
 
satch919 said:
How can WWII soldiers be any more "EXTREME" than the guys fighting in Iraq? They're soldiers and they kill. Our guys today can kick some serious ass. I'd like you to go up to a Navy SEAL, Delta Force Operative, or Iraq combat veteran and tell them that WWII soldiers were more extreme.

And another thing. When has war ever been civilized? What's civilized about humans killing other humans?
The fighting in WWII was actually against a powerful enemy. Fighting back a military force that was capable of practically steamrolling through countries (moreso at the beginning) is a bit different than fighting an already weak country that was even further weakened by sanctions. Wading through the water and up the beach on foot while machinegun emplacements are shooting all around you is a little worse than rolling in with tanks and shit after bombing the crap out of the area. WWII soldiers didn't have a lot of technology to fall back on... and the technological advantage over was probably nonexistant, at best. WWII had the draft. You were flipping burgers? Tough. Now you're fighting to help save the world from Germany and Japan (if you're on the side of the Allies). Yeah... it is a bit more "extreme" than the "war" in Iraq.

Although, I do agree that there is nothing civilized about war.
 
Thanks, OCybrManO, for your comments.

Sure, there was a difference in the war's. However, there wasn't a difference in the man. They're still both soldiers trained to do one thing. Kill.

Both generations have gone down different paths as to how to kill the enemy but some things remain the same.

1. Someone died. A son, brother, uncle, father, etc.
2. The aftermath of being under fire and seeing death all around you.

If you listen to WWII vets, some are still shaken about the fact that they killed someone even though they were the enemy. They were still humans.

For the time, our guys in the 40's had the best technology available. We had the first nuclear weapon for christ sakes.

You contrast the Normandy invasion to modern urban warfare. Not the best comparison but lets still take a look at it.

Normandy- Machineguns firing at you. Death all around you. Explosions. Constant threat of death. Fear.

Modern Urban Warfare scenario - Unable to see where your foe is. Death. Seeing civilian casualties from the bombings. Constant threat of death. Explosions. IEDs/traps. Fear.

The important things aren't the specifics of the battle but, rather, how the soldiers felt. Both scenarios involve fear. Not just your typical "oh my gosh" fear, it's more like "what if I'm blasted to bits next?" fear. Or "Holy sh!t, that guy's head infront of me just exploded" fear. Just as in Normandy, our soldiers now still feel the same fear and uneasiness. In both cases though, our guys still manage to keep it together and complete the task at hand.

To say that the men of WWII were more "EXTREME" is to belittle the soldier in the uniform today. These soldiers today are fighting and dieing on foreign soil. Is that any less extreme than any generation before them?
 
Wow satch, I didn't really expect anyone to get their panties in a bunch. But you proved me wrong.

I like how you take the morale high ground, the popular defense, even if you have nothing to gain. Good job on making the intarweb look like serious shit.
 
Pesmerga said:
Wow satch, I didn't really expect anyone to get their panties in a bunch. But you proved me wrong.

I like how you take the morale high ground, the popular defense, even if you have nothing to gain. Good job on making the intarweb look like serious shit.

Well, I'm glad I could help in some way. Oh, and didn't you mean moral high ground?

How is having an opinion making the internet "look like serious shit"? Am I not able to have an opinion on a particular subject? Should I ask for your approval before I post anything?

In addition, your comments about the "EXTREME" military men were in bad taste so I felt that I, or someone else, should address that.
 
SFLUFAN said:
BACK to the topic at hand - if you didn't like "Over There", you're in good company. The US Army didn't like it either:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/233932_over26.html

Their evaluation of the show: "bogus".

Well, it is a show on TV. What did they expect? A documentary?

If people want more realism, I suggest watching Shootout! on The History Channel. Watch the Fallujah episode. Great stuff.

Who really thought that it'd be "true to life"? I didn't.

Bottom line, its entertainment.
 
That Battle of Fallujah episode was INCREDIBLE!!! One of the best documentaries I've ever seen. I'm considering ordering the DVD for my collection.

I think the main beef the soldiers have with "Over There" is the way they're being portrayed by the actors and the nature of tactics the show depicts. I don't think the soldiers would have any argument if they were depicted in roughly the same way as the actors in "Band of Brothers" depicted the men of the 101st Airborne.
 
SFLUFAN said:
I think the main beef the soldiers have with "Over There" is the way they're being portrayed by the actors and the nature of tactics the show depicts. I don't think the soldiers would have any argument if they were depicted in roughly the same way as the actors in "Band of Brothers" depicted the men of the 101st Airborne.

Well, Band of Brothers had the budget and help of Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, and HBO. 'Over There' probably has a considerably lower budget.

I think its pretty decent for a cable show miniseries. Most of the audience isn't going to be military personnel, it'll be the regular citizen who have little to no knowledge of military tactics and training.
 
C'mon Satch - you know you want to visit us over at IGN again :p
 
SFLUFAN said:
C'mon Satch - you know you want to visit us over at IGN again :p

I do, but I'm afraid that I'l start spending unhealthy amounts of time on the boards. :P
 
satch919 said:
Well, Band of Brothers had the budget and help of Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, and HBO. 'Over There' probably has a considerably lower budget.

I think its pretty decent for a cable show miniseries. Most of the audience isn't going to be military personnel, it'll be the regular citizen who have little to no knowledge of military tactics and training.
Yeah, but it got a little -too- rediculous. Beyond the point of your regular folks knowing that's not the tactic. Pulling over after a roadside bomb was the pinnacle of that, as an example. You'd have to be retarded to do so.
 
During the second episode, 3 (or 4?) cars drove to the road block. Every single one was suspicious, every single one was shot up. Even regular folks would have to see that that's kinda redundant. They would've been better off if:

1 car drives to the road block, everything checks out and they make it through. A second car drives up, but at an unusually high speed and no sign of stopping. This car gets shot up, they discover it's a suicide bomber.

There's just so much nonsense shooting. The Sarge says "NO WARNING SHOTS I REPEAT NO WARNING SHOTS." What happens? The Sergeant is the first person to fire warning shots. Why bother saying that in the first place?
 
bam23 said:
There's just so much nonsense shooting. The Sarge says "NO WARNING SHOTS I REPEAT NO WARNING SHOTS." What happens? The Sergeant is the first person to fire warning shots. Why bother saying that in the first place?
He wanted the first shot... duh. :rolleyes:
 
"NO WARNING SHOTS I REPEAT NO WARNING SHOTS."

::bang bang::

"You stupid private stole my kill."
 
Back
Top